Oaks on Homosexuality

[Born Free]

I stumbled across this gem on the internet. I find it interesting that Mormons appear to be trying to get their pro-Mormon sites appearing ahead of less favourable sites when punters search the internet.

Their fear appears to be to reduce the chance people will access overtly anti-Mormon material.

What this approach overlooks, is how much mainstream Mormon material is available on the internet, and that when intelligent people read it, they will be gobsmacked by its sloppiness, and struck by its anti-science posture. Take this example, from this site which contains a Dallin H Oaks address entitled Same Gender Attraction:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ridge/2291/gender.html

"These doctrines, commandments, and responsibilities guide us in answering the questions posed earlier in this article.

Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called "gay bashing"--physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior.

We should extend compassion to persons who suffer from ill health, including those who are infected with HIV or who are ill with AIDS (who may or may not have acquired their condition from sexual relations). We should encourage such persons to participate in the activities of the Church.

Applying the First Presidency's distinction to the question of same-sex relationships, we should distinguish between (1) homosexual (or lesbian) "thoughts and feelings" (which should be resisted and redirected), and (2) "homosexual behavior" (which is a serious sin).

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and Gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior."

Notice the way in which gayness is positioned next to deadly diseases, and the reader is encouraged to adopt a compassionate (condescendingly superiour) attitude to these diseased, and evil-acting people.

Mental gymnastics and gooblidook is used to separate homosexual attraction (OK we cannot explain how this occurs) from homosexual activity (which is clearly evil).

"We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and Gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings or behaviors."

WTF does that mean, and who the hell is he to define what the meaning of those words is?

So a person can have a homosexual thought (adjective describing a noun), but not be a homosexual (noun). :duh

"Our religious doctrine dictates this usage." Well I guess at least he acknowledges here what is shaping his particular use of language. Language is disconnected from its attempt of direct link with reality, and its use and meaning is now 'dictated' to by his theology?

"It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior."

Wow! He is now a scientific expert, so arrogant that he is prepared to fly in the face of science.

This is as best as he can do on science:

" We live in a time of accelerating scientific discoveries about the human body. We know that our inheritance explains many of our physical characteristics. At the same time, we also know that our behavior is profoundly influenced by psychosocial factors such as parental and sibling relationships (especially during the formative years) and the culture in which we live. The debate over whether, or the extent to which, specific behavior is attributable to "nature" or to "nurture" is centuries old. Its application to the subject of same-sex feelings and behaviors is only one manifestation of a highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy.

Some scientists deny that behavior is genetically influenced.{8} Others are advocates of evidence or theories suggesting that "there is substantial evidence for genetic influence on sexual orientation."{9}"

This creates the impression that the nature-nurture debate is still wide open. Check out books like The Blank Slate, and see what Pinker says on this issue in summarising the last few decades of research. This text (Pinker) concludes that science now is largely agreed that nature shapes 50%, nuture about 20-25% and we exercise 'choice' or 'agency' in about 20-25%. Check out the words I have highlighted. They (strongly) appear to have been chosen to shift the emphasis on the mix of these elements, and the shift they appear to intend to create flies directly in the face of the best science. Follow through his argument. Maybe people who later 'choose' gayness are influenced by their siblings and family during early life!

He also implies that there is some equal split between those supporting inate vs acquired attributes - particularly with respect of sexual preference. This is patent drivel. I am not aware of anyone medical person not from a religious context, who argues that gayness is dominately choice-based these days. But again, he relies upon the ignorance, laziness and even prior bias of his audience.

Let's test the viability to this statement by inverting it! Did I or he as heterosexuals, exercise choice in our heterosexuality? I personally never felt the slightest attraction sexually to other men, so am I to assume that he did, and that he 'chose' hetero? If that is the case, maybe he would like to expand on that; shine more light on the process; put some fingerprints on the story, so that people struggling with like-attraction can learn from his experience.

But if, like me, same sex attraction was never an issue, I suggest he has little to offer in the way of either expert or personal insight into same-sex attraction as a 'choice'.

I also find his absolute rejection of homosexuality as inherent, in marked contrast to Spongs journey, when he was confronted with this issue. Where as Spong accessed the best medical minds in the field in New York, and then is prepared to tell us of that jouney and the resulting shifts in his attitudes, from Oaks we get a several select sources cited, interpreted in a misleading manner and he spoke to none of the leading researchers personally. The gap in style on this powerful and painful (for many people) issue is very wide.

What does this say about the audiences that listen to these two men? Are Mormons used to testing their 'givens' out to see if they stand up? Or do they switch off their brain in the face of issues like this?

"Different persons have different physical characteristics and different susceptibilities to the various physical and emotional pressures we may encounter in our childhood and adult environments. We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either, but we do choose and will be accountable for the attitudes, priorities, behavior, and "lifestyle" we engraft upon them."

Ah the wonderful 'lifestyle' issue. People choose their sexual orientation like they choose to drive an SUV or a Prius! Riiiight! Christ, at least if you make the 'wrong' decision there you get to trade in a few years. Gays get beaten, ostracized and on, and on it goes. Who in their right mind would 'chose' that 'style' unless a profound masochist? Like, I was watching TV and the gays in Queer Eye for a Straight Guy just seemed sooo coool. I thought "Wow, I think I'll do that!" Yeah, right!

What this glib drivel ignores, skirts around, and even runs from IMO, is the net effect (the fruits if you will) of this.

Lets check out the net effect in people's lives of following this 'Godly wisdom'. Let's skip a few years down the road and observe the delayed impact of a young person who buys this argument, steel themseves and attempts to make hetero work, when it is against their core nature. Let's check out the fruit from this tree!

Typically they hit what I label the midlife 'integrity test', when they realise their life is half over and that they feel deeply unsettled, and they say 'I can't do this anymore. Sorry, I need to be authentic. I MUST stop living a lie!' And they come out.

And all hell breaks loose. Families are torn apart. Partners feel they have been lied to. Yet the gay party feels they tried everything in their power to do 'the right thing', including (very vulnerably) eliciting and following the advice of Priesthood leaders.

Needless to say, for the most part, after their outting, the gay person departs the Church, so this tragic story never gets aired; certainly not accurately. The bad fruit of this 'wisdom' does not get sighted, so people never have to challenge whether the tree is bad!

Back to the model Oaks constructs. Try this statement:

"We are, of course, aware of evidence that inheritance explains susceptibilities to certain diseases like some cancers and some other illnesses like diabetes mellitus. "

This remark is positioned in such a way as to imply, particularly to the lazy and uncritical mind, that homosexualtiy is a disease. What shitty tactics.

Is it a disease or is it a 'lifestyle choice'? Take a pick, but stop wandering all over the subject spraying pejorative remarks that muddy the water and exemplify sloppy logic and discipline. It it one or the other?

See, if it is a disease, he should be able to point to examples of effective treatment of the disease. Can he do that? Surprise, surprise, no!

"A study of fifty-six pairs of identical male twins in which one twin classified himself as "gay" reported that 52 percent of the co-twins also classified themselves as gay.{11} A similar study of female identical twins yielded approximately the same proportion of co-twins who classified themselves as gay (thirty-four of seventy one pairs 48 percent).{12} If these studies show some inherited influence on whatever causes a man or woman to classify himself or herself as homosexual or lesbian, it is clear that this influence is not determinative. As a prominent scientist observed, "Even the identical twin of a gay man has a 50 percent or more chance of being heterosexual--even though he has the exact same genes and is reared by the same parents."{13) We should also note that the results of these studies (and others described below) are based on the subjects' self-classifications, a shaky foundation for scientific conclusion when "there is still no universally accepted definition of homosexuality among clinicians and behavioral scientists--let alone a consensus regarding its origins."{14}"

Cop that lot. Notice how he reverses the ownus of proof?

The identical twin of a gay is 52% likely to report they are gay. He uses that to argue they exercise choice. :rolleyes:

The 'chance' of a man being gay is about 10% so this research is showing a 400% increase over randomness. I would argue that he has the responsibility to disprove the genetic component, rather than gays having to prove it. The latest research I can access is a study from Richard Pillard of Boston University School of Medicine who in the June 1992 Harvard Health Letter concludes:

Homosexuality runs in families
Homosexuals appear randomly in birth order
Homosexuals exhibit early childhood gender nonconformity
Identical twins have the highest concordance rate: If one is homosexuual, there is a 50% probability the other will be too.

All the above also ignores other data about sexuality variations. I just watched a program here re transgendered conditions. According to that program, about 1 in 500 people have them.

Now I am not sure where the borderline gets drawn between normal variation and 'abnormality'.

Transgendered at 1 in 500 is .2%.
Male homosexuality is regarded at about 10%
Female homosexualtiy at around 8%
Left-handedness at around 10%

Maybe left-handedness is a moral issue. Even in relatively recent times children were punished severly for use of the left hand. We don't have to go back far in some religions where the left hand was used exclusively for wiping ones butt after defecating when going to the toilet, so the left hand was manifestly inferior to the right. But does that notion dominate a modern westerners thinking and persist as a moral/religious issue?

"Individuals and their families desiring help with these matters should seek counsel from their bishop, branch president, stake or district president. We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues. Many will respond to Christlike love and inspired counsel as they receive an invitation to come back and apply the atoning and healing powers of the Savior. (See Isaiah 53:4-5; Mosiah 4:2-3)"

Yes. Manifestly these men are as eminently qualified to advise you on your homosexuality as they are on masturbation or sexual abuse. Check out their quals; check out their training, their supervision, their accountability after the fact. When push comes to shove they adopt an 'all care and no responsibility' position, unless they are trying to settle embarrassing legal disputes out of court (confidentially so that culpability can be denied publicly).

"Another concern we have is the way in which our sons and daughters are classified as people who practice deviant and lascivious behavior. Perhaps some do, but most do not. these young men and women want only to survive, have a spiritual life, and stay close tho their families and the Church. It is especially damaging when these negative references are spoken from the pulpit. We believe such talks only create more depression and a tremendous amount of guilt shame, and lack of self-worth, which some have endured throughout their entire lives. There is sometimes a real lack of pure love of Christ expressed to help them through their ordeals. We will appreciate anything you can do help them with the plight of these much misunderstood children of our Father in Heaven. If some General Authorities could express more sensitivity to this problem, it would surely help to avoid suicides and schisms that are caused within families. Many simply cannot tolerate the fact that Church members judge them as 'evil people,' and they, therefore, find solace in gay-oriented lifestyles"{20}

WTF does this mean when you strip away the glib phrases? Sounds like, "Don't say things that will propel them to suicide the day after conference, but it is OK to use more subtle language that will act more diffusely, so they are confused about why they are morbidly depressed and suicidal."

Our sexuality is one cornerstone of our existence, and a major one at that. The unstated inference of all the above is that if you have a preponderance of 'homosexal thoughts' (in contrast to being a homosexual [noun]), then you are safe with God, provided you never act, never be sexual.

That the incidence of your 'disease' occurs at the same rate as lefthandedness, is neither here nor there. That it was once esteemed more highly to sit on the right hand of head of the house, but that now no one gives a rats, is beside the point! That you, a person more prone to 'homosexual thoughts' is an issue, if you choose to act, if you 'choose' to embrase evilness and vileness.

"The differing perspectives of scientific evidence and religious doctrine can be likened to the difference between studying about an automobile by observing its operation and disassembling and analyzing its various parts or by reading the operator's manual written by the manufacturer. Much can be learned by observation and analysis, but that method will yield only partial knowledge of the function and potential of a machine. The best and most complete knowledge about the operation and potential of a machine will be revealed by studying the manual written by its manufacturer. The operator's manual for our bodies and souls is the scriptures, written by the God who created us and interpreted by his prophets. These are the best sources of knowledge about the purpose of life and the behavior and thoughts we should cultivate in order to live in happiness and to achieve our divine destiny."

Ripper. So if I want heart surgery, I will go to a surgeon who uses the Bible as a medical text. WTF?

Simple test! Does Oaks eat bacon? The bible is clear on that issue, maybe even clearer; as clear as it is on homosexuality. I would be confident he eats non-Kosher foods, but he persists in beating up on homosexuals.

So, if you would like some practice in the decontruction of religious goodlidook, particularly as it relates to one of our favourite subjects around here - sexuality; get stuck into this Oaks gem. You will have a good time.

I know I did.

Daryl

[Born Free]

"Applying the First Presidency's distinction to the question of same-sex relationships, we should distinguish between (1) homosexual (or lesbian) "thoughts and feelings" (which should be resisted and redirected), and (2) "homosexual behavior" (which is a serious sin).

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and Gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.

Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of "nature and nurture." All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior."

In the above, Oaks acknowledges that some homosexual feeling may be inborn, but then adds “but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed)”.

Now if feelings are inborn, that begs the question of whether they are natural, as in of the natural order, or from within his paradigm, they are as God intended.

The accumulating picture from science is that homosexuality, like left-handedness, is in the natural order of things. Arguing that man was designed to partner and reproduce is simplistic in the extreme. Increasingly the data supports better teh idea that we were born to be sexual, some of which resulst in reproduction. Sexuality inhuman beings manifestly serves more function than reproduction. We are the only animal who is interested in and has sex other then when the female is in oestrus.

Data shows homosexuals mate heterosexually at a higher rate per/person than heterosexuals, hence the persistence of the trait (genetically). They also have a lower life expectancy, so their higher fertility and lower life expectancy appear to about cancel each other out in net fertility terms.

Increased observation by scientists of the natural world (for the sake of this argument – animals other than human) shows there that sexual activity is far from exclusively hetero. So if God created hetero, bi and homosexual critters of the wild, it is reasonably possible He/She did not restrict that process to non-human animals.

This raises a series of interesting questions:

Did God make a mistake in making homosexual animals or anything for that matter?

Or did God experiment with sexuality in His/Her non-human creations, but then change the rules when He/She got to humanity?

Oaks simply never touches on these issues, which would have provided one independent reference point about what is ‘natural’ and what is perverse.

This leads into the circular argument that sex outside marriage is a sin. Without challenging that notion (which is another debate) lets check out Oak’s logic.

Sex outside marriage is evil and unacceptable to God.

Gays cannot marry

Therefore gay sex is outside marriage

Therefore gay sex is evil and unacceptable to God

Got the reasoning?

Only one problem? Who said gays can’t be married?

We have established that biblical statements against homosexuality are no more or less reliable or applicable than kosher law which Christians and Mormons near universally reject.

So if gays exclusion from the institution of marriage was removed, then the ‘non-married (gay) sex is evil’ statement can still stand, and gay sex can then be all the things that marriage sanctioned sexuality is supposed to be.

Daryl

[Born Free]

President Joseph F. Smith taught:

"Sexual union is lawful in wedlock, and if participated in with right intent is honorable and sanctifying. But without the bonds of marriage, sexual indulgence is a debasing sin, abominable in the sight of Deity."{1}

Oaks uses this quote early in his gaybash. I find it useful to work with.

I love the qualifier: 'and if (sexual union in marriage is) participated in with right intent (it) is honorable and sanctifying'

Instead of gaybashing, I think his time might be much better spent exploring the qualifier to this remark. The rates of depression of Mormon women would be a great starting point. There is ample evidence that many, many Mormon women experience their marital sexual activity as anything other than 'honorable and santifying'.

Let's, for the sake of the exercise, invert the saying! It becomes: 'and if (sexual union in marriage is) participated in without right intent is dishonorable and desecrating'.

Now, if you place 'dishonorable and desecrating' up against 'a debasing sin, (and) abominable' (sourced from the above quotation), which sounds the worst? I don't know about you, but I can't pick the difference; they are much of a muchness.

I think the above exercise has taken married sex down off the pedestal just a bit..... narrowed slightly the gap between the reality of Mormonsim's 'sacred marriage sex', and profane, 'evil', gay sex.

Daryl

PS: Just between you, me and the gatepost, I don't see too many Mormon women who look like they are having a rollicking great time behind the bedroom door. Many appear decidedly frumpy, flat, and sparkless, manifesting all the symptoms of having a very painful experience in their bodies.

[Born Free]

After the section that quotes quite well from some of the latest scientific insights, and just before the heading THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHURCH OFFICES AND MEMBERS, Oaks concludes the scientific quotes with:

"This observation, but one of many suggestions from scientists, is particularly persuasive because it takes account of the vital element of individual choice that we know to be a true principle of our mortal condition."

He was relating to:

""Conspicuously absent from most theorizing on the origins of sexual orientations is an active role of the individual in constructing his or her identity. . . . We propose an interactional model in which genes or hormones do not specify sexual orientation per se, but instead bias particular personality traits and thereby influence the manner in which an individual and his or her environment interact as sexual orientation and other personality characteristics unfold developmentally."{18}"

Let me interpret what I hear him saying.

This observation, I am choosing to embrace (selectively), as particularly persuasive, because it suits my prior bias, which places a particular emphasis on the element of individual choice that we know to be a true principle of our mortal condition (according to our religious paradigm).

He has engaged in a particular piece of chicanery here that might impress the less well read. He has quoted some research, but in part extracted it from its broader scientific context. And even then he draws out of it, that which is not there.

For instance, whilst he has mentioned the DNA link to homosexuality re glosses over the hormonal systems. Several other mechanisms in the body and the environment during feotal and early development appear to also interact to impact 'sexing' of the human brain and the creation of identity.

Further, in interpreting the science remarks, he takes extracts relative to sexual choice, then pulls them out of context and commences building other layers of inference, that the science simply does not support.

Does all this sound vaguely familiar? Sounds just like he has been studying the methods used over at FARMS.

Daryl

[peter_mary]

I haven't read it yet, though I'm familiar with the topic, but there is a great article in the February National Geographic (US Edition...can't speak for others!) on the chemistry of love and, yes, attraction.

It's all about the bio-chemical reactions that take place when we are exposed to certain very biological stimuli, how the brain sustains it for a time, what happens afterward, etc.

The relative point here is that we recognize that NONE of us have the identical genetic makeup...well, guess what? We don't have the identical chemical makeup, either. Our glands that produce chemicals in response to what our biology receives (and in part has been taught...I'm a nature AND nurture guy myself...) are also unique, creating soups and potions that stimulate the brain and subsequent behaviors differently. There are enough of us clumped around the midpoint to allow us to believe we're "normal", but I think it's high time we realize that very few of us actually line up with that midpoint...we MOSTLY deviate from it...some more than others.

But recognizing that what we're talking about is nothing but biological diversity made manifest by chemical diversity, it is easier to see that we ALL exist on a sexual continuum, and that the notion of "normal" is nothing but stastics. NORMAL is NOT truth, but rather just one way for the majority to organize the jumble and help them feel better about themselves.

Huh...sounds a lot like religion.

By the way...I remember the General Conference when I turned to my wife and asked, "What happened to Dallin Oaks? Did someone eat his brain?" He had just given his "Teach from the Manual" talk roughly 6 or 7 years ago, and it was apparent to me that "they had gotten to him." Up until that point, I thought he was a pretty reasonable guy. After that...blech. I haven't liked one thing I've read of his.

[Born Free]

I haven't read it yet, though I'm familiar with the topic, but there is a great article in the February National Geographic (US Edition...can't speak for others!) on the chemistry of love and, yes, attraction.

It's all about the bio-chemical reactions that take place when we are exposed to certain very biological stimuli, how the brain sustains it for a time, what happens afterward, etc.

The relative point here is that we recognize that NONE of us have the identical genetic makeup...well, guess what? We don't have the identical chemical makeup, either. Our glands that produce chemicals in response to what our biology receives (and in part has been taught...I'm a nature AND nurture guy myself...) are also unique, creating soups and potions that stimulate the brain and subsequent behaviors differently. There are enough of us clumped around the midpoint to allow us to believe we're "normal", but I think it's high time we realize that very few of us actually line up with that midpoint...we MOSTLY deviate from it...some more than others.

But recognizing that what we're talking about is nothing but biological diversity made manifest by chemical diversity, it is easier to see that we ALL exist on a sexual continuum, and that the notion of "normal" is nothing but stastics. NORMAL is NOT truth, but rather just one way for the majority to organize the jumble and help them feel better about themselves.

Huh...sounds a lot like religion.

By the way...I remember the General Conference when I turned to my wife and asked, "What happened to Dallin Oaks? Did someone eat his brain?" He had just given his "Teach from the Manual" talk roughly 6 or 7 years ago, and it was apparent to me that "they had gotten to him." Up until that point, I thought he was a pretty reasonable guy. After that...blech. I haven't liked one thing I've read of his.

I'll muddy the water more:

I'm for nature AND nurture AND agency!

Let that blow their narrow little B&W Mo brains.

Daryl

[helemon]

I'll muddy the water more:

I'm for nature AND nurture AND agency!

Let that blow their narrow little B&W Mo brains.

Daryl

But then the individual chooses to sin.

[free thinker]

By the way...I remember the General Conference when I turned to my wife and asked, "What happened to Dallin Oaks? Did someone eat his brain?" He had just given his "Teach from the Manual" talk roughly 6 or 7 years ago, and it was apparent to me that "they had gotten to him." Up until that point, I thought he was a pretty reasonable guy. After that...blech. I haven't liked one thing I've read of his.

Unfortunately like all corporations Oaks is being groomed for the top slot. This requires a certain amount of abdication.

I wonder if in the quiet moments of his life Dallin does not feel some of his soul being deteriorated?

How painful must the words he has written be for those who are gay or lesbian. One would hope for more compassion from an apostle of Jesus Christ.

It is so very easy to ask someone to forgo their sexual prediliction. So very difficult to practice it yourself.

ft

[miss taken]

If my child were gay I wouldn't want him consigned to being alone for the rest of his life without the joys of romantic and physical love in a stable and loving relationship.

The GA's just have no idea of the science behind this stuff and will spout off. If there is reincarnation I hope in the next life they end up being born genetically gay or with mixed sexual organs, and lets see how they struggle through it. (and are born into a totally devout LDS family)

Just my opinion.
Mary

[free thinker]

Please tolerate from me just a couple of other quick thoughts.

If homosexuality is indeed innate, this causes a significant problem for mormon doctrine. The pre-existence is taught by the church to be a sentient state. A spiritual state wherein we have bodies that are spirit and not the more crude matter of flesh, blood, tissue, and bone. In this state we were agents, and could not be thus unless presented with choices and the commensurate ability to decide for ourselves.


If we there were also gender specific, and that gender transfers to earth life.( Which we would have to assume it does.) Then somewhere along the line of transition to mortal human from immortal spirit, somehow sexuality becomes transferred or misplaced.

This of course is not something that the church can allow to be promulgated as a possibility. It would introduce either a bumbling god, or one that is possibly cruel , or careless. Therefore we should not be surprised at the reluctance of the church leaders to accept homosexuality as innate.

ft

[peter_mary]

Please tolerate from me just a couple of other quick thoughts.

If homosexuality is indeed innate, this causes a significant problem for mormon doctrine. The pre-existence is taught by the church to be a sentient state. A spiritual state wherein we have bodies that are spirit and not the more crude matter of flesh, blood, tissue, and bone. In this state we were agents, and could not be thus unless presented with choices and the commensurate ability to decide for ourselves.


If we there were also gender specific, and that gender transfers to earth life.( Which we would have to assume it does.) Then somewhere along the line of transition to mortal human from immortal spirit, somehow sexuality becomes transferred or misplaced.

This of course is not something that the church can allow to be promulgated as a possibility. It would introduce either a bumbling god, or one that is possibly cruel , or careless. Therefore we should not be surprised at the reluctance of the church leaders to accept homosexuality as innate.

ft
Excellent bit 'o reasoning here, free thinker! That thinker must be especially free tonight! :)

Truly, you've nailed it. The church is in a box here. If they say homosexuality is inate, then they came to this earthly life that way, which means they were that way in the pre-existence, which means they were "wicked" before they got here and its not their fault.

But that's not very comfortable doctrine-wise, so you HAVE to lump it into the same "choice" category as criminal behavior. They don't have a choice!

Good thinkin' thinker!

[bobcat]

I love the contradiction inherent to people allegedly "choosing" to be gay. Especially in light of the following statement by Oaks:

We propose an interactional model in which genes or hormones do not specify sexual orientation per se, but instead bias particular personality traits and thereby influence the manner in which an individual and his or her environment interact as sexual orientation and other personality characteristics unfold developmentally."

So, following his reasoning, personality attractions lead us to a choice as which which gender we prefer. But, like Daryl pointed out, most (or at least many) heterosexual people never "chose" to be straight: they just are. This complicates Oaks' reasoning enormously: either people CAN be born with gender preferences (which nullifies his whole point), or this "choice" we made to be straight was subconcious, and thus not really a choice at all (which nullifies many other of his assumptions).

Of course, most TBMs aren't going to analyze his reasonsing this much. They will just glance over it and assume that because it cites science, it must be right. Then they'll repeat the same talking points ad nauseum in their missionary work and church talks until these talking points end up becoming as integral to the gospel as the sacred ordinance of bringing dried cereal to sacrament meeting for the kids, or the wearing of floral dreses to church :D

[lunaverse]

Data shows homosexuals mate heterosexually at a higher rate per/person than heterosexuals, hence the persistence of the trait (genetically). They also have a lower life expectancy, so their higher fertility and lower life expectancy appear to about cancel each other out in net fertility terms.


Hi Daryl! My housemate would really like to know your source on this. Do you have it handy?

Luna

[Born Free]

Hi Daryl! My housemate would really like to know your source on this. Do you have it handy?

Luna

My source is on loan text to someone else.

Annoyingly, the author, British biologist Robin Baker does not cite his research data in this book, but from other material and commentators, I gathered that his conclusions were based on solid science. (Like you, I suspect, this annoyed the hell out of me, as I like to check and recheck material like this, partcularly when it is quite novel in its approach)

The book is Sperm Wars, and spells out a range of male and female reproductive strategies, and how those relate to the bodies complex strategies.

Check out more at:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0788160044/104-9763584-1216761?v=glance&n=283155

One reviewer elsewhere said of the book:

A scientist off the leash. Robin Baker is an expert Zoologist who has left the confines of academia to pursue a writing career. This book is frightening. It explains why we do what we think we choose to do. I suspect that not every contention he makes is quite as solidly based as it could be but even so the overall impression received from reading this book is that the body knows what it wants, and that choice is rational, the mind is left to make up the story afterwards.

The book describes the nature of sperm competition, an area of study only recently probed. I get the impression that this man knows more about the true nature of sperm than all the experts in assisted conception put together. Sperm is involved in Darwinian competition and selection to a degree that very few people could have imagined. A fascinating book.

I would encourage you to check out several reviews of Baker's work before deciding on your comfort with his approach and conclusions. Be warned, you will not think about this area the same again, after reading this book.

As I tested this against many gay men I know, to my surprise, it panned out pretty well. Yes, I do know many gay men that are not fathers, but I know many that fathers several children in marriages before concluding they really were gay. Sadly many gay men that leave the Church are in exactly this situation, in the this case probably having fathered even more than teh average, before coming out.

In many ways this should not surprise. Allowing for the many complex ways in which we now believe 'gayness' appears to be shaped, a range of acquired features (gene and hormonal) appear to play a significant part. That the trait persists suggests strongly its has a solid heritable component, which manages to persist in spite of all the reproductive resistance that 'pure' homosexuality would create.

Daryl

[vixenz]

There is quite a bit of information available on this topic on Wikipedia (one of my favorite resources online):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_medical_science

I even stumbled across this which was not surprising:

Homosexuality: A Psychiatrist's Response to LDS Social Services (http://www.affirmation.org/learning/homosexuality_a_psychiatrists_response.asp)

About a year and a half ago I received a bootleg copy of the LDS Social Services document "Understanding and Helping Individuals with Homosexual Problems". I was intrigued and perplexed with the content and tone of the document. It is unusual as a scientific document written to mental health professionals in the 1990s for its unqualified and unjustified use of concepts steeped more in the prejudices of Western tradition which date back to the turn of the century than in modern social or psychological sciences. The document's title spells out its primary, erroneous premise: that homosexuality is, in fact, a mental health "problem." The LDS-SS document's thesis is that homosexual orientation is a manifestation of a treatable disturbance in one's gender identity which is caused by dysfunctional family relationships: "It is in the three-way relationship between the parents and the child that the homosexual's family background is commonly dysfunctional. Homosexuality is, in part, a symptom of some type of relational deficit." In spite of the numerous well-designed studies since the 1950s which have disproved this myth, this fallacy forms the scientific cornerstone of the LDS-SS document. Even more concerning, however, is the way that the LDS-SS document attempts to justify—if not require—unethical professional behavior on the part of the LDS Social Services psychotherapist who is treating homosexual persons. How could the LDS-SS document have been conceived, published, and distributed in 1995 by the mental health division of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, an organization committed to the principles of honesty and integrity? .....

It really is sad how science can be so ignored. Ignorance really is the basis of all suffering.

[miss taken]

Hi Vixenz,

This reminded me of some of the stuff my friend was saying when she returned from BYU after studying in their drama/english dept for a few years. She had quite a few gay male friends there, and her understanding was that the root cause of being gay was in the relationship with the father for male homosexuals. Her understanding had come from LDS initiatives to understand these things, I believe. Maybe this is where she was getting it from. As I remember it was something to do with the boy being unable to form a close emotional relationship with the male parent. Homosexuality is an attempt to re-kindle that closeness that the son could never get with his father??? Something like that. Someone can correct me if I have got that wrong please!!

Mary

[skeptic]

Evergreen was advertising one of its witch doctor counseling clinics over our local radio station. In the advertisement it stated Evergreen was not affiliated with the LDS church. Guess where the clinic was to be held? How about at a LDS Stake Center in St. George Utah.

Evergreen has Mormonism written all over it see http://www.evergreeninternational.org/

While researching for the causes of homosexuality I challenged LDS Social Services as to why they referred people to Evergreen when the APA has come out dead against Reparative Therapy. The LDS Social Services supervisor I talked to told me the APA was against Reparative Therapy because of the Gay lobby's political pressure on the APA. I’m sure it has nothing to do with that there is no scientific empirical evidence indicating that Reparative Therapy works.

Place yourselves in a Gay persons shoes being condemned by society, being taught you are holding the hand of Satan. And then going to your Mormon bishop for confession and help to change your sexual orientation. Then ponder this statement from the Evergreen site below: “While it is true that no one should be coerced into treatment, the reverse is also true that no one should be denied treatment if they want it. Ultimately, it is an issue of personal freedom and self-determination.”

Also note from Evergreens web site below, the words “Some activists”, and “However proposals have been presented.”

Then read the APA’s Ethics Code at the very bottom. Do you detect a little bit of distortion and lying for the Lord here?

From Evergreen:
Treatment is Ethical http://www.evergreeninternational.org/Treatment_ethical.htm
Some activists seek not only to declare homosexuality to be normal, but also to block a person’s attempts to change his homosexuality. They believe that such attempts are simply manifestations of the person’s internalized homophobia and self-loathing, and that the only healthy response to homosexual feelings is to accept a gay identity. They would like to make it professionally unethical for therapists to help people grow out of homosexuality. Although homosexuality is no longer classified as a disorder, clinicians who treat those who seek treatment for homosexuality are treating within the guidelines in the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC, 1994, p. 528), section 302.9, "sexual disorders not otherwise specified," "persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation." However, proposals have been presented in both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association to make it unethical for a therapist to offer treatment to those who seek treatment for their distress over homosexual desires. Such therapists would have their licenses revoked and be liable for punitive damages.
Since such proposals are gaining increasing support, it is important to take proactive measures to preserve the right to receive professional help. Therapists who have seen how people can be helped are organizing to find ways to protect the rights of patients who seek treatment as well as the rights of the therapists who treat them. For more information, contact the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. While it is true that no one should be coerced into treatment, the reverse is also true that no one should be denied treatment if they want it. Ultimately, it is an issue of personal freedom and self-determination.

_______________________________________________

From the APA

Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, & Bisexual Clients
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/guidelines.html#5

APA’s policy, "Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation" (1998), offers a framework for psychologists working with clients who are concerned about the implications of their sexual orientation. The policy highlights those sections of the Ethics Code that apply to all psychologists working with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. These sections include prohibitions against discriminatory practices (e.g., basing treatment upon pathology-based views of homosexuality or bisexuality); a prohibition against the misrepresentation of scientific or clinical data (e.g., the unsubstantiated claim that sexual orientation can be changed); and a requirement for informed consent (APA, 1992). Based upon the Ethics Code, the policy "Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation" calls upon psychologists to discuss the treatment, its theoretical basis, reasonable outcomes, and alternative treatment approaches. In providing the client with accurate information about the social stressors that may lead to discomfort with sexual orientation, psychologists may help neutralize the effects of prejudice and inoculate the client against further harm. If psychologists are unable to provide this or other relevant information due to lack of knowledge or contravening personal beliefs, they should obtain the requisite information or make appropriate referrals (see Section 1.08, Ethics Code). Further, when a client presents with discomfort about sexual orientation, it is important for psychologists to assess the psychological and social context in which this discomfort occurs. Such an assessment might include an examination of internal and external pressures on clients to change their sexual orientation, the presence or absence of social support and models of positive lesbian, gay, or bisexual life, and the extent to which clients associate homosexuality or bisexuality with negative stereotypes and experiences. These and other dimensions of sexual orientation discomfort are important for psychologists to explore as the meanings associated with them are invariably complex. The role of psychologists, regardless of therapeutic orientation, is not to impose their beliefs on clients but to examine thoughtfully the clients’ experiences and motives. Psychologists may also serve as a resource for accurate information about sexual orientation (e.g., by providing clients with access to empirical data on such questions as the development of sexual orientation or the relationship between mental health and sexual orientation).

In working with our Post Mormon Support group I’ve come to know Gays who are good, honest, caring and contributing members of society. How can the so called loving Mormon God condemn these people?

[Born Free]

There is quite a bit of information available on this topic on Wikipedia (one of my favorite resources online):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_medical_science

I even stumbled across this which was not surprising:

Homosexuality: A Psychiatrist's Response to LDS Social Services (http://www.affirmation.org/learning/homosexuality_a_psychiatrists_response.asp)

About a year and a half ago I received a bootleg copy of the LDS Social Services document "Understanding and Helping Individuals with Homosexual Problems". I was intrigued and perplexed with the content and tone of the document. It is unusual as a scientific document written to mental health professionals in the 1990s for its unqualified and unjustified use of concepts steeped more in the prejudices of Western tradition which date back to the turn of the century than in modern social or psychological sciences. The document's title spells out its primary, erroneous premise: that homosexuality is, in fact, a mental health "problem." The LDS-SS document's thesis is that homosexual orientation is a manifestation of a treatable disturbance in one's gender identity which is caused by dysfunctional family relationships: "It is in the three-way relationship between the parents and the child that the homosexual's family background is commonly dysfunctional. Homosexuality is, in part, a symptom of some type of relational deficit." In spite of the numerous well-designed studies since the 1950s which have disproved this myth, this fallacy forms the scientific cornerstone of the LDS-SS document. Even more concerning, however, is the way that the LDS-SS document attempts to justify—if not require—unethical professional behavior on the part of the LDS Social Services psychotherapist who is treating homosexual persons. How could the LDS-SS document have been conceived, published, and distributed in 1995 by the mental health division of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, an organization committed to the principles of honesty and integrity? .....

It really is sad how science can be so ignored. Ignorance really is the basis of all suffering.

Great additional resources, vixenz. I will bookmark those.

It amazes me that while they speak of not gay-bashing, they cannot seem to get it through their little brains that that is exactly what they persist in doing.

Only trouble is, I figure if I was a gay teenager today, I would access the internet to my hearts content, until I had got myself out of the shame/guilt box in which MoInc insists n placing gays. And then, having absorbed, I'd be gooooooooooooooooooooooooooone!

Outta there. Like, ta ta!

Sadly, I think that the Church does more than ignore science. It appears to willfully bastardize science. And I find it hard to see how it is not done consciously - a process that gets close to my personal definition of evil.

Daryl

[bobcat]

Glad to see you posted some, vixenz! Doesn't finding a cool new website make our boring job that much better? Great comments in this and the other thread.

Sadly, I think that the Church does more than ignore science. It appears to willfully bastardize science. And I find it hard to see how it is not done consciously - a process that gets close to my personal definition of evil.

I will agree with you, Daryl. It may have been possible to ignore science in a different day and age, in a time when there weren't thousands upon thousands of reliable online resources for the average person to consult. Now, I can't see how you could afford to ignore it: if the church doesn't start attacking and bastardizing science directly, they risk losing members without putting up a fight. Granted, they fight like a cornered cat that has no win to win in the end. But that doesn't mean they won't claw and scratch for a while at least!

[lunaverse]

As I tested this against many gay men I know, to my surprise, it panned out pretty well. Yes, I do know many gay men that are not fathers, but I know many that fathers several children in marriages before concluding they really were gay. Sadly many gay men that leave the Church are in exactly this situation, in the this case probably having fathered even more than teh average, before coming out.

In many ways this should not surprise. Allowing for the many complex ways in which we now believe 'gayness' appears to be shaped, a range of acquired features (gene and hormonal) appear to play a significant part. That the trait persists suggests strongly its has a solid heritable component, which manages to persist in spite of all the reproductive resistance that 'pure' homosexuality would create.

Daryl

LOL. There is a strong irony here. If many gay men and women have children because they are forced into hetrosexual marriage by society, then wouldn't it assist the anti-Gay agenda to encourage homosexuals to come out of the closet before marrying, live a childless gay lifestyle, and within a generation or two reduce the percentage from 10% to 2-3%?

;)

Things will get really interesting when children can be born from the eggs of two women, without the need for sperm. It's already been done in mice. Looks like the anti-Gay agenda missed its chance!

Luna

[Born Free]

LOL. There is a strong irony here. If many gay men and women have children because they are forced into hetrosexual marriage by society, then wouldn't it assist the anti-Gay agenda to encourage homosexuals to come out of the closet before marrying, live a childless gay lifestyle, and within a generation or two reduce the percentage from 10% to 2-3%?

;)
<snip>

Luna

You can reach that conclusion, and I can, so why can't they see that? Leads one to suspect that they have another agenda, doesn't it?

What's the Kristofferson line: 'for decent folks to look down on'?

But it also avoids that there appears to be a fair chunk of bisexuality about, most particularly amongst women! :eek:

IN that book, the author argues a case for homsexuality levels self-correcting: too low and they will correct up; too high and theu will correct down, but sadly I can never keep his logic in my head.

Daryl

[vixenz]

You can reach that conclusion, and I can, so why can't they see that? Leads one to suspect that they have another agenda, doesn't it?

What's the Kristofferson line: 'for decent folks to look down on'?

But it also avoids that there appears to be a fair chunk of bisexuality about, most particularly amongst women! :eek:

IN that book, the author argues a case for homsexuality levels self-correcting: too low and they will correct up; too high and theu will correct down, but sadly I can never keep his logic in my head.

Daryl

I really don't think things are quite so black and white as our religious and political leaders would like to have us believe. I think there are many levels of bisexuality yet at the time I've seen gay people (women as well as men) who have been completely turned off by the idea sexual relations with the opposite gender, and of course vice versa.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could get rid of these aweful labels and just accept sexuality and love as it exists and just let people BE.

Even animals aren't exempt from our titles, over 500 species have been observed engaging in bisexual behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexual#Bisexuality_in_animals).

There is even a list of bisexual people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bisexuals) :confused:

[helemon]

IN that book, the author argues a case for homsexuality levels self-correcting: too low and they will correct up; too high and theu will correct down, but sadly I can never keep his logic in my head.

Daryl

I thought I heard some speculation about homosexuality being connected to maternal stress levels. If the mother is under high stress during pregnancy then there is a higher chance that the fetus will have a homosexual orientation. The arguement was that the body interpreted the environmental stress as indicating overpopulation and need for more caretakers and fewer breeders. I don't recall the source or the science behind this assertion though.

[Born Free]

I thought I heard some speculation about homosexuality being connected to maternal stress levels. If the mother is under high stress during pregnancy then there is a higher chance that the fetus will have a homosexual orientation. The arguement was that the body interpreted the environmental stress as indicating overpopulation and need for more caretakers and fewer breeders. I don't recall the source or the science behind this assertion though.

Helemon,

Your source is supect - it was moi! :rolleyes:

Back when we had that homophobe (sorry, elders moment) on here, we all dialled up our sources, and at that time I found that that research finding had since been seriously questioned.

:: Hand actions indicate winding backwards motion ::

Unlike MoIncSS, I make mistakes! :eek:

Daryl

[helemon]

Helemon,

Your source is supect - it was moi! :rolleyes:

Back when we had that homophobe (sorry, elders moment) on here, we all dialled up our sources, and at that time I found that that research finding had since been seriously questioned.

:: Hand actions indicate winding backwards motion ::

Unlike MoIncSS, I make mistakes! :eek:

Daryl

Ok, I thought I saw it on TV but my memory is foggy on that issue. Sounded like a plausible theory. I thought it was connected to some show on wolfs where there is occasionally a bachelor male relative that is allowed to help care for the pups. But what do I know.

[ifitmakesuhappy]

1. God created us "male and female" (D&C 20:18; Moses 2:27). What we call gender was an essential characteristic of our existence prior to our birth


What's he tryin to say here? That because I'm a lesbian i'm challenging my femininity? Yes we were created male and female but personally i don't see what gender has to do with it. Being a lesbian doesn't make me any less female. Playing with toy cars/soldiers, never wearing skirts, playing football and being sexually attracted to other women does not make me any less female than your average frilly frock wearing, cookie baking mo female. By being a lesbian I am certainly not trying to be a man. I embrace being a woman, I embrace being gay. I embace doing some things the world would class as "boys things" and also I embrace doing some "girly things". Yes I believe I was created female. No I don't accept that by being a gay female i am challenging or reversing gender. So yes I agree that gender is an essential part of our characteristics...I just don't quite see what point he is trying to make in relation to someone being gay...?? :confused:

[bobcat]

ifitmakesuhappy: I think this type of thinking comes in response to the Mormon idea (prevelant elsewhere, too), that gender roles NEED to exist to preserve order in the world. Hence, the discussion (as dogzilla, I believe, pointed out) often seems to turn to the subject of "who is the man/woman?" in a homosexual relationship. The need for defined and seperate gender roles is so strong in Mormon theology that they can't begin to understand a relationship where both partners are female, or both are male.

[ifitmakesuhappy]

ifitmakesuhappy: I think this type of thinking comes in response to the Mormon idea (prevelant elsewhere, too), that gender roles NEED to exist to preserve order in the world. Hence, the discussion (as dogzilla, I believe, pointed out) often seems to turn to the subject of "who is the man/woman?" in a homosexual relationship. The need for defined and seperate gender roles is so strong in Mormon theology that they can't begin to understand a relationship where both partners are female, or both are male.


I have to agree with you bobcat re TSCC's idea that gender roles must exist to create a balance or an order. To speak of my own personal experience within my own lesbian relationship, I find it absurd that anyone would think that one of us must be "the butch one". My partner and I both have pretty much equal ammounts of "feminine" qualities and also we both have a lot of qualities which may be classed as not at all feminine. Personally i am not at all a girly girl (you will never catch me in frills or floral! :D ) but that doesnt mean i'm not ALL WOMAN. Our relationship is not affected in any way by the non presence of masculinity. That Oaks might feel that we are missing somethin essential because a certain gender isn't present is so ignorant and narrow minded to me. :eek:

[vixenz]

I have to agree with you bobcat re TSCC's idea that gender roles must exist to create a balance or an order. To speak of my own personal experience within my own lesbian relationship, I find it absurd that anyone would think that one of us must be "the butch one". My partner and I both have pretty much equal ammounts of "feminine" qualities and also we both have a lot of qualities which may be classed as not at all feminine. Personally i am not at all a girly girl (you will never catch me in frills or floral! :D ) but that doesnt mean i'm not ALL WOMAN. Our relationship is not affected in any way by the non presence of masculinity. That Oaks might feel that we are missing somethin essential because a certain gender isn't present is so ignorant and narrow minded to me. :eek:

This is a subject where I don't see white and black but many beautiful variations of color! I myself have a strong attraction to my best friend who is also a very beautiful woman (it is mutual). Although I wouldn't consider either of us to be 'girlie' we are both very femine and very sexual - there is absolutely no 'butch' in either of us! I have found that there are people I am very attracted to in both genders yet I don't feel I can or should be classified as anything. I don't think anyone should be classified, all that does is cause segregation, bad feelings and ignorance.

[free thinker]

I love the new signature!! :D



Oh Lord, please make me pure - but not yet"



ft

[Born Free]

What's he tryin to say here? That because I'm a lesbian i'm challenging my femininity? Yes we were created male and female but personally i don't see what gender has to do with it. Being a lesbian doesn't make me any less female. Playing with toy cars/soldiers, never wearing skirts, playing football and being sexually attracted to other women does not make me any less female than your average frilly frock wearing, cookie baking mo female. By being a lesbian I am certainly not trying to be a man. I embrace being a woman, I embrace being gay. I embace doing some things the world would class as "boys things" and also I embrace doing some "girly things". Yes I believe I was created female. No I don't accept that by being a gay female i am challenging or reversing gender. So yes I agree that gender is an essential part of our characteristics...I just don't quite see what point he is trying to make in relation to someone being gay...?? :confused:

From the outside, their worldview looks like:

I am feeling anxious; what are they?

Have they got boobs? Yes? Must me female; female means: motherhood, passivity, domesticity.

Have they got a penis? Yes? Must be male; male means: fatherhood, active/dominant, worldliness.

Boobs + penis = white picket fence, hetero, domesticity.

What a simple model! Anything more, is too complex to compute; activates a whole range of visceral reactions/ presumptions/fears.

Ah, the appeal of a world as simple as the one I perceived as a child. No complexities, no grays, just pure blacks and whites! :rolleyes: Maybe I could return to believing in Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy (not to mention a world where 'God' never stuffed up and made transgendered people!)

Daryl

[elder_nomo]

I've enjoyed following this thread and wanted to jump in before it rolls away. Here are my random comments...

"We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and Gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings or behaviors."

WTF does that mean, and who the hell is he to define what the meaning of those words is?

So a person can have a homosexual thought (adjective describing a noun), but not be a homosexual (noun).

Just when I think I've caught all the parallels between Mo-ism and "1984", you found another. All that's missing is for Oaks to call this "Newspeak".
BTW, Daryl, thanks for starting this thread, and for all the great analysis and commentary. :cool:

.....Her understanding had come from LDS initiatives to understand these things, I believe. Maybe this is where she was getting it from. As I remember it was something to do with the boy being unable to form a close emotional relationship with the male parent. Homosexuality is an attempt to re-kindle that closeness that the son could never get with his father??? Something like that. Someone can correct me if I have got that wrong please!!
Mary, I can't say whether LDS teach/taught that, but if so, they were not alone. The "domineering mother/absent father" idea has been around for a long time. I believe psychologists and scientists gave it up ages ago, but it still persists in certain circles.


It amazes me that while they speak of not gay-bashing, they cannot seem to get it through their little brains that that is exactly what they persist in doing.

Only trouble is, I figure if I was a gay teenager today, I would access the internet to my hearts content, until I had got myself out of the shame/guilt box in which MoInc insists n placing gays. And then, having absorbed, I'd be gooooooooooooooooooooooooooone!

Outta there. Like, ta ta!

Hopefully a lot of young people are able to get unbiased information like this, but I'm afraid Mo kids won't have an easy time of it, even today. Sites that offer good, solid information will be off-limits to many because of sexual or "anti-mormon" content. When I was a young Mo, any inkling I had of being gay was quickly quashed. I was afraid to even let the thought form clearly in my head, let alone do any research on it. Maybe in these more open times people are less afraid. I sure hope so. There really should be some balance to the self-loathing the church instills.


Sadly, I think that the Church does more than ignore science. It appears to willfully bastardize science. And I find it hard to see how it is not done consciously - a process that gets close to my personal definition of evil.
I have to agree with you, Daryl. It’s another form of “lying for the Lord.”


To speak of my own personal experience within my own lesbian relationship, I find it absurd that anyone would think that one of us must be "the butch one".

Ifitmakesuhappy - that reminds me of once when I was actually asked “Which one of you is the ‘woman’”? (referring to my partner and me). I just looked at this person as if he was crazy and in my best “speaking to a 2-year old voice” said “Huh? Woman? We’re both *men*. Two *men*. See? That’s why they call us *gay*. If one of us was a woman, we’d be called *straight*. Get it?”

[Born Free]

I've enjoyed following this thread and wanted to jump in before it rolls away. Here are my random comments...

Just when I think I've caught all the parallels between Mo-ism and "1984", you found another. All that's missing is for Oaks to call this "Newspeak".
BTW, Daryl, thanks for starting this thread, and for all the great analysis and commentary. :cool:
<snip>

This is a subject I am passionate about. The specifics of homosexuals challenges I can only guess at, but Mormonism shames and blames so much in the area of sexuality, and derives so much of its pseudo-power from messing with people's heads in that area.

I though this was a great example of their gooblidook, which is not hard to go through and deconstruct. I invite others to hone their skills on this monumental piece of drivel which attempts to derive authority by the abuse of science and logic flip-flops.

I realized later that I would love to have the authors of some of his quotes remark on his conclusions. I am confident they would shoot him down in flames.

Daryl

[flotsam]

Just wanted to let you all know that at Ward Conference today we were reminded yet again, that to let gay rights into the Constitution would be sin - as homosexuality continues be.

Oh, and the following are now banned from the homes of all faithful Alaskan saints: HBO, Cinemax. Showtime, Kate and Leopold (is the name of that show?), and Friends.

And incidently, in an R-rated world, our lives should be rated G.

[helemon]

And incidently, in an R-rated world, our lives should be rated G.

That should help cut the mormon birth rate really fast.

[Born Free]

Just wanted to let you all know that at Ward Conference today we were reminded yet again, that to let gay rights into the Constitution would be sin - as homosexuality continues be.

Oh, and the following are now banned from the homes of all faithful Alaskan saints: HBO, Cinemax. Showtime, Kate and Leopold (is the name of that show?), and Friends.

And incidently, in an R-rated world, our lives should be rated G.

So I guess 8 vagina'd Heaven n'Earth-rattling-orgasmed angel from AiA would be off the G rated McMoMenu?

Daryl

[dogzilla]

Ifitmakesuhappy - that reminds me of once when I was actually asked “Which one of you is the ‘woman’”? (referring to my partner and me). I just looked at this person as if he was crazy and in my best “speaking to a 2-year old voice” said “Huh? Woman? We’re both *men*. Two *men*. See? That’s why they call us *gay*. If one of us was a woman, we’d be called *straight*. Get it?”

My dad asked me the same question of my friends. I told him to turn it around and answer it for himself: How does he and his wife decide who gets to be the woman?
:rolleyes:

He doesn't get it.

[helemon]

My dad asked me the same question of my friends. I told him to turn it around and answer it for himself: How does he and his wife decide who gets to be the woman?
:rolleyes:

He doesn't get it.

I had a sociology course where the professor brought in some gay men. One guy in the class asked while tapping his two index fingers together end to end to provide a visual image for his query "I don't get it. How can two guys have sex?" The gay man replied "Meet me in the bathroom after class and I'll show you." The rest of the class laughed.

[vixenz]

I had a sociology course where the professor brought in some gay men. One guy in the class asked while tapping his two index fingers together end to end to provide a visual image for his query "I don't get it. How can two guys have sex?" The gay man replied "Meet me in the bathroom after class and I'll show you." The rest of the class laughed.

smoooooooooth ;)